Quote:
Originally Posted by Destor
of course you would but that isnt the topic at hand. the real issue with tryign to talk about brets achievements is bret marks are just like "I loved him sooooooo much" and base an argument around that. It isnt objective. He had a fine career, most would be envious. But if we're talking about writing the definitive history of pro wrestling bret comes up at most twice. He just didnt have that meaningful of a career in hindsight.
|
But that's not what Dale's doing here. He's making a pretty good case for Bret, to be honest. I get annoyed at the subjectivity on the internet as much as anybody (this place infuriated me with its Alexa Bliss goddess worship a while back), but I think Bret is more significant than two mentions. I think he's an important part of WWF history (the dominant company, dark as this timeline might be), and is chained to major moments and events.
On Bret refusing to drop the belt to Michaels: Why did Vince even have it on him when he was clearly going to step away from Bret anyway? Why does Vince not take the blame in setting this situation up for himself? HBK was
really hard to deal with during the period, and I can understand why Bret would not want to lose to the prick in his home country. Especially if it pissed off Bischoff who should have reasonably seen money in Canada, and could have held it against Bret if he tarnished that reservoir. Hell, The Rock has refused to even work with Shawn Michaels.
It's easy to say "Bret should have done what he was told," but wrestling had a lot more prestige and cache then. Michaels refused to drop belts to countless people himself. Austin refused to work with certain individuals. And I'd applaud Brock if he refused to drop the belt to a limited piece of shit he needs to beat up to get into position like Braun Strowman. Lying down for Michaels in Canada was a dumb idea for Vince to present, frankly.